Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A 66-count, multi-defendant criminal indictment notified the defendants that the government would seek criminal forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. 982(a)(1), (a)(2)(A), (b) and 28 U.S.C. 2461(c) as part of any sentence imposed and would seek civil forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(C), (a)(1)(D), and 28 U.S.C. 2461(c). Furando and his companies pleaded guilty; Furando’s plea included agreed-upon forfeiture of personal property, assets, vehicles, funds, Saddle River, New Jersey real property, and proceeds from the sale of commercial real estate in Montvale. The subsequent preliminary forfeiture orders directed the government to give notice to potential third-party interest holders under 21 U.S.C. 853(n), which the government did.Furando’s wife and three companies (claimants) filed under 21 U.S.C. 853 to make their claim as innocent owners of the property. The district court denied the claimants’ petition to adjudicate the validity of their interest, granted the government’s motion for interlocutory sale of the Saddle River property, and denied the claimants’ section 853(n) petition without further explanation. The Seventh Circuit vacated in part. The district court erred in sua sponte denying the section 853(n) petition without a hearing or opportunity to amend. The government’s arguments that the claimants cannot prevail under 853(n)(6) and the arguments about prior vested interest are misplaced, because those statutory considerations are only relevant “after the hearing”—which never occurred. The court affirmed the order for an interlocutory sale. View "United States v. Furando" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery under 18 U.S.C. Section 1951(a) and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c). The conspiracy conviction served as the predicate crime of violence for the firearm offense.Under the terms of the plea agreement, Defendant waived the right to challenge his conviction and sentence on direct appeal or through a collateral attack. However, following United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), Defendant brought a collateral attack on his firearm conviction under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, claiming that notwithstanding his waiver, his conviction must be vacated because it was predicated on the residual clause held unconstitutional in Davis.The Fifth Circuit held that Defendant's plea waiver was valid, and precluded collateral attack, citing Grzegorczyk v. United States, _ U.S. _ (2022) (Kavanaugh, J., respecting the denial of certiorari). View "USA v. Caldwell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal affirming Defendant's convictions of driving under the influence (DUI) causing damage to property or person and DUI causing serious bodily injury, holding that Defendant's dual convictions violated double jeopardy.On appeal, Defendant argued that his dual convictions arising from a single episode violated double jeopardy. The Third District affirmed, holding that principles of double jeopardy did not prohibit dual convictions and sentences for DUI property damages/bodily injury and DUI serious bodily injury arising from the commission of a single act. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the criminal offenses of DUI causing damage to property or person and DUI causing bodily injury are degree variants of the same offense under Fla. Stat. 775.021(4)(b)2; and (2) Defendant's dual convictions for both offenses as to the same victim arising from a single episode violated the prohibition against double jeopardy. View "Velazco v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiff agreed to help Defendants LLC obtain financing, and Defendants agreed to assign Plaintiff and his company their majority stake in the LLC.AN issue arose regarding what that assignment entailed. After years of litigation and a two-week trial, the jury awarded Plaintiff a four-million-dollar verdict on claims of fraud and conversion, which they reduced by a half-million dollars for his failure to mitigate damages. Defendants now seek to vacate that verdict, arguing that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded in part. The court held that the district court had subject matter over this action, and the Circuit Court has jurisdiction over the appeal. Second, none of the issues raised by Defendants on appeal warrant reversal. And three, on Plaintiff's cross-appeal, the district court erred in giving a failure-to-mitigate instruction to the jury. The court thus reinstated the $500,000 that the jury subtracted from the compensatory damages award.   The court explained that Plaintiff's federal civil RICO claim was not so obviously frivolous that it failed to invoke federal jurisdiction. And although the district court could have declined to continue exercising jurisdiction once the federal RICO claim was dismissed, the parties consented to litigate the remaining state law claims in federal court. As a result, Defendants cannot argue on appeal that the district court abused its discretion by declining to dismiss the case. View "Arturo Rubinstein, et al v. Yoram Yehuba, et al" on Justia Law

Kemp and seven codefendants were convicted of drug and gun crimes. The Eleventh Circuit consolidated their appeals and, in November 2013, affirmed their convictions and sentences. In April 2015, Kemp moved to vacate his sentence, 28 U.S.C. 2255. The district court dismissed Kemp’s motion as untimely because it was not filed within one year of “the date on which [his] judgment of conviction [became] final.” Kemp did not appeal. In 2018, Kemp sought to reopen his section 2255 proceedings, arguing that the one-year limitations period on his 2255 motion did not begin to run until his codefendants’ rehearing petitions were denied in May 2014. The Eleventh Circuit agreed that his section 2255 motion was timely but concluded that because Kemp alleged judicial mistake, his FRCP 60(b) motion fell under Rule 60(b)(1), with a one-year limitations period and was untimely.The Supreme Court affirmed. The term “mistake” in Rule 60(b)(1) includes a judge’s errors of law. Because Kemp’s motion alleged such a legal error, it was cognizable under Rule 60(b)(1) and untimely under Rule 60(c)’s one-year limitations period. The Court rejected Kemp’s arguments for limiting Rule 60(b)(1) to non-judicial, non-legal errors and applying Rule 60(b)(6), which allows a party to seek relief “within a reasonable time” for “any other reason that justifies relief,” but is available only when the other grounds for relief specified in Rules 60(b)(1)–(5) are inapplicable. View "Kemp v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2011, Defendant pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon. Under the Armed Career Criminals Act, Defendant received a 15-year sentence. Included in Defendant's plea agreement was a waiver of the right to appeal and to collaterally attack his conviction for any reason aside from ineffective assistance of counsel of prosecutorial misconduct. Defendant did not appeal, but filed a Sec. 2255 petition raising prosecutorial misconduct and ineffectiveness claims. The district court denied Petitioner's petition and he was denied a certificate of appealability.Subsequently, Defendant filed a second Sec 2255 petition in the wake of Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015). The Sixth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on this issue; however, the matter was resolved against Petitioner based on the waivers in his plea agreement.Following the denial of his second Sec. 2255 petition, Petitioner filed a Sec. 2241 petition. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, finding that Sec. 2241 was unavailable to Petitioner because he could not satisfy the requirements of Sec. 2255(e), which limits federal prisoners’ access to Section 2241.The Fourth Circuit affirmed. A federal prisoner may pursue habeas relief through a Sec. 2241 petition only if it “appears that the [Section 2255] remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Here, the court determined that Sec. 2255 adequately provided an avenue of review, as evidenced by the Sixth Circuit's consideration of Petitioner's Johnson claim. View "Larry Slusser v. Acting Warden Vereen" on Justia Law

Denying Petitioner’s motion to recall a mandate, the Ninth Circuit wrote (1) motions that assert a judgment is void because of a jurisdictional defect generally must show that the court lacked even an arguable basis for jurisdiction, (2) Petitioner has not met that standard in arguing that the statutory “in-custody” requirement was satisfied, and (3) the additional details provided in the motion and accompanying exhibits do not demonstrate the Ninth Circuit’s holding on mootness lacked an arguable basis. View "STEPHEN MAY V. DAVID SHINN" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-appellants Alan Dohner and William Gerber were, when their lawsuits were filed, general population inmates living in dormitory housing at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison (CVSP). They claimed they had the right to possess a personal television in their cells, rather than being limited to shared televisions located in common areas. They raised various claims flowing from the enforcement of the regulations that prohibited them from doing so. The trial court rejected all the claims, denying their request for a writ of habeas corpus without issuing an order to show cause and sustaining respondents’ demurrer to their claims for a writ of mandate and declaratory relief. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "In re Dohner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part a writ of mandamus ordering the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) to provide certain records that Relator requested under the Public Records Act, Ohio Rev. Code 149.43, holding that Relator was entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling DRC to produce inmate master file documents.After Relator's request for documents was denied he commenced this action seeking a writ of mandamus compelling DRC to provide a copy of his inmate master file and all kites, grievances and appeals filed by him through the electronic-kite system. The Supreme Court granted the writ in part, holding (1) Relator failed to show a clear legal right to a writ of mandamus to compel the produce of the grievance-related records; (2) the DRC must produce the requested records; and (3) Relator was entitled to an award of the statutory maximum of $1,000 in damages. View "State ex rel. Mobley v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction" on Justia Law

Under the 2020 Racial Justice Act, “[t]he state shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction or seek, obtain, or impose a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin” (Pen. Code 745 (a)). The Act's discovery provision allows a defendant, “[u]pon a showing of good cause,” to obtain evidence from the prosecution relevant to a potential violation. Based on evidence presented at his preliminary hearing, Young argued that racial profiling in a traffic stop led to his arrest for possession of Ecstasy for sale. He cited statistics showing that, statewide, blacks are more likely to be searched during traffic stops than others. He sought discovery relating to charging decisions for the past five years concerning others who were charged with or could have been charged with possession of Ecstasy for sale and related drug offenses. The trial court denied the motion.The court of appeal vacated. Borrowing from the minimal threshold showing that is required to trigger an obligation to provide “Pitchess” discovery (Evid. Code 1043(b), Young may claim entitlement to discovery under the Act if he makes a plausible case, based on specific facts, that any of the enumerated violations of section 745(a) could or might have occurred. The court must engage in a discretionary weighing of the strength of Young’s factual showing, the potential probative value of the information he seeks, and the burdens of gathering the requested information. View "Young v. Superior Court of Solano County" on Justia Law